agentleFS
fagemxfagemx/edda/AGENTS.md

edda

AGENTS.md36 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Before doing repository work, read .claude/CLAUDE.md completely. It is the canonical project guide for architecture, Rust conventions, tests, decisions, and multi-agent coordination. Claude Code and Codex sessions get the edda pack injected by a hook. If you are not one of those, run these three before touching any file, and treat their output as the pack: 1. edda context — decisions, peers, off-limits paths. 2. edda task list — the task rail; pick the task assigned to you. 3. edda…

The file

We split this AGENTS.md into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 8

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Before doing repository work, read .claude/CLAUDE.md completely.

    line 3
  2. Distinctive:

    Follow it: it names your scope, who owns the gate, and what is out of scope.

    line 16
  3. Very specific:

    When two or more sessions are implementing in parallel, use the host-selected coord-orchestrate projection and follow the canonical source …

    line 28
  4. Very specific:

    Before editing with active peers, use $coord-sync, inspect off-limits paths, and claim the smallest accurate scope.

    line 30
  5. Very specific:

    Every review handoff freezes IN SCOPE: changed behavior/paths, direct callers/consumers, issue/spec acceptance, introduced or exposed …

    line 35
  6. Distinctive:

    Stop after two non-product/harness-only cycles without useful progress or at diminishing returns.

    line 49
  7. Very specific:

    Verify once per frozen SHA on the ladder in .claude/CLAUDE.md: focused crate gates while iterating (L0).

    line 51
  8. Very specific:

    When you compile this workspace locally, build only in the lane your brief assigns (worker-1, worker-2, verifier, verifier-2).

    line 62
  9. Very specific:

    Use codex/ branch names for Codex-created branches unless directed otherwise.

    line 87
  10. Very specific:

    Run the checks required by .claude/CLAUDE.md at the ladder level that matches your change before claiming completion.

    line 88

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 40,246 AGENTS.md files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
AGENTS.md

Edda Codex Instructions

Before doing repository work, read .claude/CLAUDE.md completely. It is the canonical project guide for architecture, Rust conventions, tests, decisions, and multi-agent coordination.

Session start without edda hooks (pi, or any session edda did not launch)

Claude Code and Codex sessions get the edda pack injected by a hook. If you are not one of those, run these three before touching any file, and treat their output as the pack:

  1. edda context — decisions, peers, off-limits paths.
  2. edda task list — the task rail; pick the task assigned to you.
  3. edda task show <id> — prints your brief without changing its lifecycle. Follow it: it names your scope, who owns the gate, and what is out of scope.

Delivery entry

Assigned sessions resume their task and brief. Small or cohesive single-writer changes use the ordinary repository flow. A controller forms a fleet only for two or more genuinely parallel implementing sessions; the canonical generic route is crates/edda-cli/src/skills/coord-orchestrate.md (delivery-flow/1), projected to the host-selected coordination skill.

Multi-session work

  • When two or more sessions are implementing in parallel, use the host-selected coord-orchestrate projection and follow the canonical source above.
  • Before editing with active peers, use $coord-sync, inspect off-limits paths, and claim the smallest accurate scope.
  • Record load-bearing facts in edda task or edda decide before using chat or host messaging as a doorbell.
  • Request permission before crossing another session's scope.
  • Every review handoff freezes IN SCOPE: changed behavior/paths, direct callers/consumers, issue/spec acceptance, introduced or exposed security or data-loss regressions, and current-base integration. Adjacent, pre-existing, or speculative findings become evidenced FOLLOW-UP ISSUEs and do not extend the current PR. This is a bounded complete review, never a minimal review: every frozen-surface failure is mandatory, and only findings genuinely outside that surface qualify for follow-up.
  • Reviewers complete the whole scoped audit and batch blocking P0/P1 before requesting changes. Later-round blockers must be fix-caused or previously unobservable. The issue/spec is the acceptance ceiling; extra evidence is mandatory only to prove a required fact or safety boundary.
  • Select gates from code/product-blob, base, and toolchain changes. Docs- or evidence-only pushes reuse still-applicable code gates as READ, run only relevant validation plus exact-head CI as RAN, and record available cost. Stop after two non-product/harness-only cycles without useful progress or at diminishing returns; route follow-up or ask the operator to expand scope.
  • Verify once per frozen SHA on the ladder in .claude/CLAUDE.md: focused crate gates while iterating (L0); exact-head CI at the frozen full SHA plus the verifier's applicable focused Windows-gap run (L1); reviewers READ that receipt and exact-head CI and RAN only what they do not cover (L2); a draft, label, or status flip is not a push, so nothing reruns (L3). State the reason whenever you rerun a recorded gate. Know what this repository's CI actually covers — Windows runs tests for only 7 crates — and treat a real gap as a reason to RAN a focused check of the uncovered surface, not the full set. Deterministically red CI already blocks the SHA: audit and request changes instead of spending a full run; re-run only the failed job when the red is environmental.
  • When you compile this workspace locally, build only in the lane your brief assigns (worker-1, worker-2, verifier, verifier-2). Never create ad-hoc CARGO_TARGET_DIRs per round, SHA, or timestamp; solo work uses the worktree's default target/. Lane build cache is disposable; worktrees, branches, and sources are not. This is about local Cargo build output only — a session that runs no local build has no lane and needs none. Reclaim stale incremental sessions by age, and report if the pool grows without bound; see Build lanes in .claude/CLAUDE.md for the measured footprint and why any fixed ceiling is provisional.
  • This is policy for sessions invoking coord-review, coord-orchestrate, or fleet-orchestrate; it is not an Edda runtime rule imposed on every project.
  • Review immutable full SHAs; any push invalidates the prior verdict.
  • On GitHub PRs, publish numbered SHA-pinned review rounds. Requested changes require an implementer point-by-point response and a new review round; merge requires a final current-head LGTM comment with P0=0, P1=0 and ran gates. Internal verifier reports do not replace the PR-visible loop. For local-only delivery, record the same fields in the strongest durable local carrier; do not invent a PR.
  • Worker receipts are execution evidence, not acceptance. Merge follows the recorded rule gate — current-head LGTM, P0=0/P1=0, CI Gate green, empty SHA window (docs/fleet/rules.md R6) — never a role's own action.

Repository safety

  • Preserve unrelated user changes.
  • Use codex/ branch names for Codex-created branches unless directed otherwise.
  • Run the checks required by .claude/CLAUDE.md at the ladder level that matches your change before claiming completion; docs-only changes rely on exact-head CI and run no Cargo gate locally.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.